What's new

Did British Colonialism help the sub-continent or hurt its development?

Did British Colonialism help the sub-continent or hurt its development?


  • Total voters
    10

Bigboii

First Class Star
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Runs
3,813
Post of the Week
1
Simple question but something I see a lot colonial apologists suggesting

without Britain colonialism SC would have been a worse of country/ countries
 
I personally have no issues with their colonial past because I feel that although the British imperialism took a lot of wealth and resources from the subcontinent, it also modernized the region and fostered development. Moreover, the introduction of the English language made the first world more accessible.
.

You claim to be a "knowledgeable" history reader but no deep thinking on this issue, as usual
:facepalm :mw1

In 1600s SC was the number 1 economy in the world while the crown of #1 GDP exchanged hands between the two countries throuhout history

this report from 1700s
"India had the strongest economy in 1700, closely followed by China. Throughout the entire period to the middle of the 20th century, China's economy was larger than India's by a relatively small margin. At the same time “the great powers” of the West were still well behind China and India, with France keeping third-place with a GDP less than one fourth that of China and 1/6 that of India."

When British left India was less educated and more de industrialized than ever in its ENTIRE history and economically reeling thier ranking slipped out of top 3 for the first time in its history

to add to my point, compare it to the Chinese who despite being a total mess but still maintaining its pseudo independence was 2 biggest economy after US at the time when India was nowhere in the picture

you think giving us English and their Concept off of morality was worth it?

I call this Uncle Ruckus mentality... :ishant
relevent thread
 
It did have its benefits, but even if we remove all the atrocities against human lives, overall it was definitely a net negative impact. We must move past it though
 
It is not black and white as people like Shashi Taroor claim while ranting in posh British accent.

The subcontinent is a very diverse region with a lot of cultural and religious constraints. It had the wealth but not the means to use that wealth to good effect.

The Mughals were shafted by the British with ease because they were overly focused on the luxuries of life. Fancy cuisine, poetry, music, architecture. It never focused on establishing itself as a military power.

The subcontinent should have been a colonial power as well and competed with the imperialist Europe for supremacy.

Without the advent of the British, this region would still be a chaotic mess but with less accessibility to the developed world because of the language barrier.
 
It helped develop cricket and field hockey but I think soccer would've been the most popular sport if the British never arrived.

Overall it's neither entirely positive nor negative; committed many atrocities like most empires have throughout human history and maybe they saw us as less human cause we were a different race but those were different times. Without the British, there would be dozens of different countries in South Asia and perhaps that would be a good thing or not, we don't really know which is why "what if" questions are hard to answer.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words. This is the economic impact, although just one major factor of many other extremely important ones. As far as raw numbers are concerned:

1_AD_to_2003_AD_Historical_Trends_in_global_distribution_of_GDP_China_India_Western_Europe_USA_Middle_East.png

Source: Wikipedia

For some decades India (SC) was the richest region of the world.
 
Last edited:
No amount of development justifies human suffering and the lingering affects of it till date. Development in what sense? A westernized development gives us convenience and comfort but not fulfillment. You can be happy and not destroy mother earth if you are fulfilled. A westernized development is a greedy and resource sucking way of dealing with life. The many indigenous people who were wiped out by colonizers were co-living with animals and the land because they were spiritually fulfilled. Who knows if colonizers did not invade may be we would have a world which is more ecologically conscious and with more fulfilled human beings.
 
People talk a lot about how before the colonization of India or the subcontinent, it was the world's biggest economy but they don't understand that there the per capita income, quality of living and all other social indicators were extremely poor, all the wealth was concentrated in the hands of the royals and zamindars that ruled over south asia, the people were dirt poor and illiterate, the royals and I'm talking about all the empires - Mughals, Sikhs, Marathas, Afghans etc never invested in building universitites and research institutes, the people were just destitute and left on their own, they did nothing to reform any of the social ills like satti, the caste system, honor killings etc. There was tremendous amounts of income inequalitty and little to no industrialization, while Europe, America and Japan industrilized quite rapidly. All of these royals and feudal warlords made their riches by selling agricultural products and maybe minerals, that was it, they had no ingenuity and no desire to fix the vices and living conditions of the people. The British were horrific and did some of the worst things but without the British we would have been a glorified version of Papua New Gunneia with some impressive architecture and good cuisine. We can blame the Europeans for colonizing us but why weren't our empires proactive, why didn't they invest in the military and techonology, they were so lazy and dumb that there's nothing they could've done to prevent a European conquest of South Asia.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words. This is the economic impact, although just one major factor of many other extremely important ones. As far as raw numbers are concerned:

1_AD_to_2003_AD_Historical_Trends_in_global_distribution_of_GDP_China_India_Western_Europe_USA_Middle_East.png

Source: Wikipedia

For some decades India (SC) was the richest region of the world.

Misleading. Industrial revolution. while sub continentals were busy in poetry and pottery.
 
You are parroting Shashi Taroor propaganda. You may as well have posted a link to any of his thousand rants on this topic instead of copy pasting his transcript.

Never even heard of the guy but if he says something similar, have listened instead of calling it rants….
Wish you also get into the habit of providing evidence instead of spouting nonsense with little to no substance


The subcontinent was wealthy in the 1600s with a lot of natural resources and that is why the British colonized it,

Nope SC wasn't “just” full of natural resources if that was the case Congo would have been the richest country on earth or Gold coast of Africa, Papua new Gunie but they weren't …
For its Time SC was highly industrialized and literacy rates were high compared to the rest of the world
“In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation” - Urbanisation represents the industrial nature of economies, every country/ region with urban economy represents industrialized economy it was as true throughout history as it is rn

But SC was “deindustrialized” by not only lack of attention to industrial sector but also colonial policies and laws such as Calico act

Now Indian textile was a huge money making commodity for Indian economy
They imposed tariffs on these goods when arriving in Britain, increased taxes in India, stopped them from selling in most markets
They carried these policies out on most industrial outputs of SC

Up until 1700s industrial output competed with rest of the world, actually outperformed in some areas

But these policies would definitely result in manufacturing businesses losing thousands of RP so what kind of business while losing money would invest in new techs to compete with (profitable) foreign businesses

And These are some of the “only” ways de industrialization took place in SC by colonial governments - This loot is outside of estimated 28 trillions $ worth of direct loot conducted by the brit


but there are no guarantees that the subcontinent would have remained a wealthy region after the modernization of the west.

It is important to remember that the west was going through the Renaissance while the Mughals were busy indulging in luxuries. While the west was focused on production and development, the subcontinent was focused on poetry, music and food.

“Again not true per se when Mughals were week they were removed by Marahatas and in the 1700s Mughals were barely present outside of Delhi, so the competent rulers removed the incompetent rulers (also the industriliazation/production of civilian products part was addressed before) but that doeesnt mean they could compete with the techs of European (devaloped through constant warfare for centeries throught the contient) - for the sake of the argument I like to stay in the “what if” scenario of British or any Europeans not coming to SC

It is very likely that without the advent of British, we would have been worse off than we are today and we would have less access to the developed world because of the language barrier.

The Chinese example is not relevant to the subcontinent. They are a different culture - they are predominantly a homogenous nation and godless people who are not handicapped by religious or moral values.
(Please next time comprehend the context properly…)
This is the best example there is out there
A week poor, de industrillized China (clearly homogony isnt helping because they have fallen on hard times) just like India at the time but India is no where in the picture
Thus suggesting the British damage to economy in terms of loot

Food for thought is why India despite losing significant areas is still competing and is in top rankings but during British era they were completely out of the picture?
If they were so good economically shouldn't those levels be at least stagnant

The tremendous diversity in the subcontinent and the religious indifferences would have made it very difficult for this region to be self-sufficient. Moreover, China was also a colonial power albeit at a smaller scale, while the subcontinent was not interested in colonizing other regions because it had different priorities.

So this diversity wasn't threatening India in 1700s (industrial revolution still taking place albeit wasn't at its peak)when industrially they were still competitive (outside of military tach that is) - but down the line it would have hurt them :facepalm:
Honestly read Chinese history at the time, some of the things you said are a little ignorant
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION], [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION], @KB, [MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION], @Gharib admi your views
 
People talk a lot about how before the colonization of India or the subcontinent, it was the world's biggest economy but they don't understand that there the per capita income, quality of living and all other social indicators were extremely poor, all the wealth was concentrated in the hands of the royals and zamindars that ruled over south asia, the people were dirt poor and illiterate, the royals and I'm talking about all the empires - Mughals, Sikhs, Marathas, Afghans etc never invested in building universitites and research institutes, the people were just destitute and left on their own, they did nothing to reform any of the social ills like satti, the caste system, honor killings etc. There was tremendous amounts of income inequalitty and little to no industrialization, while Europe, America and Japan industrilized quite rapidly. All of these royals and feudal warlords made their riches by selling agricultural products and maybe minerals, that was it, they had no ingenuity and no desire to fix the vices and living conditions of the people. The British were horrific and did some of the worst things but without the British we would have been a glorified version of Papua New Gunneia with some impressive architecture and good cuisine. We can blame the Europeans for colonizing us but why weren't our empires proactive, why didn't they invest in the military and techonology, they were so lazy and dumb that there's nothing they could've done to prevent a European conquest of South Asia.

2 things

First quality of life during those times was terrible across the globe litterallly everywhere outside of America's quality of life was attrotious with deep inequality across
so this isn't re presentive just of SC but of the world (outside of Americas- also suggested by them being considerably taller than their British countrymen across the pond after a just couple of generations )

2- military tech outside of Europe was just terrible and Europe got the edge (this isn't a dig at Europe just a reason) because they had the right resources, with constant warfare (with equally challenging enemies) throughout the continent (resulting in newer tech to keep them competitive)with flat lands making transfer of techs fairly easy (look at Chinese 100 warlord era and the military advancement during that era you would know what I am saying)
other countries didn't have that advantage so for tham this investment in military tach wasn't as easy and only Japan actually stayed competitive (because of the geo and lack of natural resources for attraction)

clearly the enormous advantage of Europe was very hard to overcome for the rest of the world foget SC
 
Saying colonialism helped India's development is like saying getting cancer helped you lose weight. You are not technically wrong but there were probably better ways to get in shape...
 
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION], [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION], @KB, [MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION], @Gharib admi your views

Without the British, India and Pakistan wouldn't exist in its present boundaries. English probably wouldn't be the lingua franca. We would probably be a bunch of independent ethnic states like the middle east or central asia. The social indicators in regions like the UP and Bihar wouldn't be as bad as it is today. People often represent UP and Bihar as the worst of everything about India, but many don't realise the history behind it. The Indo-gangetic plains was one of the most fertile regions anywhere in the world and the British realised it was perfect for cultivation of opium to conduct their opium trade in China and south east asia. And so the cultivation of food crops was stopped and the people living there were forced to cultivate poppy instead which resulted in abject poverty and famines.

Overall we would be like the middle east with some regions in turmoil and some regions better developed than what they are now, so pretty much like the middle east. South asia wouldn't have nukes and I suspect some states might be ripe for political interference from the bigger superpowers like the USA, USSR/Russia and China.
 
Last edited:
Considering the rot that had set in the SC during the medieval period, we were always going to get taken over by the much advanced colonial powers. Out of the lot of them, it was best the Brits took over and didnt let others a share of the pie.

Cant imagine a situation like Africa where nations were created or carved up just for convenience among these powers. Atleast people here lead a somewhat peaceful life post their departure.
 
IMO colonialism had its positive & negative points just like any other thing but if it weren't for the British Raj
The sub-continent would be like Afghanistan nowadays.
 
My vote goes to it "Hurt the development"

For those who say it helped, would it be fine to be a colony again too (maybe by a better superpower) so SC may prosper some more? There is always room for improvement. isnt it?
 
I think British colonization was harmful overall.

There were some positives but they stole a lot of resources and killed a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
My vote goes to it "Hurt the development"

For those who say it helped, would it be fine to be a colony again too (maybe by a better superpower) so SC may prosper some more? There is always room for improvement. isnt it?

What development?

Without Brits, Subcontinent wouldn't have the railways it has now, it wouldn't have the best irrigation system in the world.

People have suffered a lot under the British Raj but without them, the population would have suffered even more from the raja's & maharaja's etc.
 
What development?

Without Brits, Subcontinent wouldn't have the railways it has now, it wouldn't have the best irrigation system in the world.

People have suffered a lot under the British Raj but without them, the population would have suffered even more from the raja's & maharaja's etc.

I agree that at the time British were more developed (militarily and Industrially). But I don't agree that this means they were the only means to develop the subcontinent. Without the British lot of development has happened indigenously.
I find it hard to think of them as very generous when the money to do fill their political ambition and all the research and scientific development came from the coffers of those poor subcontinental state.
Yes, by all means call the Rajas and maharajas for what they were. Yes, they should have gone but not to be replaced by another Raja. British Raj (Raja) took your identity and soul away.
Whatever they developed was not because of any good will. The railways were not made to cut down travel time of Indians. It was to transfer loot more efficiently. Any development that they had done, would have been done on its own by the subcontinent. I believe India (for want of a better name for most of the subcontinent) would have developed on its own as it had the riches to procure the knowledge and development instead of being looted and developed.

Since there was no fair trade, I think it hurt our development.
 
Without the British lot of development has happened indigenously.
Certainly, a lot of development has happened but basically, the brits started & paved the way for the development in the future. If Brits or any other colonial power were never involved in the SC, today the SC would have looked a lot like Afghanistan with a lot of problems & no infrastructure.

I find it hard to think of them as very generous when the money to do fill their political ambition and all the research and scientific development came from the coffers of those poor subcontinental state.

No, they were not generous by any means & whatever they did they did it for their own benefits.

Whatever they developed was not because of any good will. The railways were not made to cut down travel time of Indians. It was to transfer loot more efficiently.
Totally agree, the main purpose of the railway was to transfer the loot more efficently.

Any development that they had done, would have been done on its own by the subcontinent. I believe India (for want of a better name for most of the subcontinent) would have developed on its own as it had the riches to procure the knowledge and development instead of being looted and developed.

Since there was no fair trade, I think it hurt our development.

I seriously doubt that SC would have done this development on their own, the situation would have been a lot similar to what it's in Afghanistan nowadays because people of SC were ignorant as far as modern education was concerned at that time.

All in all, SC might have started the development on its own but without the Brits to kickstart the development, the scenarios would have been a lot different.

There would have been a lot of countries as compared to 3 which are now & a lot of countries means a lot of borders & a lot of fighting between everyone which would've ensured that there won't be any stability in the region & no foreign investment. Which would have resulted in a lot of small & unstable countries like Afghanistan.
 
No region has been helped due to colonialism.

Many things happening during colonialism can be pointed out as helping the region, but alternate paths wouldn't have left the same region doing anything. There would have been no India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in the current shape, but the region would have been the same with a different number of countries. It is almost virtually certain that the region would have been collectively better off without colonialism. Some portion of the entire region would have moved to middle-income already.
 
It is a shame the british did not arrive much earlier, and that they had to leave.

Would agree with this assuming India as it was, actually was to become an extension of Great Britain. If that happened though, would probably make it too expensive to administrate, thus rendering it of little benefit to Britain itself. It was only useful as a colony to transport wealth and resources over here. Once the wealth has to start flowing in the other direction, it's toodlepips chaps, and thanks for all the daal.
 
People are still suffering from Stockholm syndrome. They are thinking someone has to come and develop them. People's view of development should be expanded. Its not just industrialization and military expansion.
 
Without the British, India and Pakistan wouldn't exist in its present boundaries. English probably wouldn't be the lingua franca. We would probably be a bunch of independent ethnic states like the middle east or central asia. The social indicators in regions like the UP and Bihar wouldn't be as bad as it is today. People often represent UP and Bihar as the worst of everything about India, but many don't realise the history behind it. The Indo-gangetic plains was one of the most fertile regions anywhere in the world and the British realised it was perfect for cultivation of opium to conduct their opium trade in China and south east asia. And so the cultivation of food crops was stopped and the people living there were forced to cultivate poppy instead which resulted in abject poverty and famines.

Overall we would be like the middle east with some regions in turmoil and some regions better developed than what they are now, so pretty much like the middle east. South asia wouldn't have nukes and I suspect some states might be ripe for political interference from the bigger superpowers like the USA, USSR/Russia and China.

But a big federal power existed throughout SC history that kept SC together (except for SI and some ethnic states but unlike SI these territories could change hands like Punjab or something who were part of big empires but also became independent sometimes on and of)

Something of a mid evil version of modern nations where the big federal gov ruled but the ethnic territories (states) are independent in some sense

What makes you think they would have declared "outright" independence or affiliation with the federal gov? (mughal, Marhatas)

if britsh didnt arrive Marhatas were there controlling large parts of territory (although with very loose control)
 
The people of subcontinent, especially those in the region that comprises of the the modern Pakistan and the northern part of India are amongst the most dishonest, lazy and intellectually bankrupt people in the world.

They can cry all they want about colonial Britain but the reality is that without getting colonized, they would be about 200-300 years in the past and living in isolation.

The people of the subcontinent, especially Muslims of the subcontinent, have no achievements at all. At least the Hindus made great contributions to mathematics and science.

That is why subcontinent Muslims are always quick to latch onto the glory and the triumphs of the Arabs and Turks because their own achievements are zero, other than producing a bunch of drunk poets.
 
nepal was never colonised, dont see it too much better than pak, ind or bang.

theres way too many variables to assume how a non colonised india would be today, other than that it pbly would have been many more countries, which would have been colonised by the other European powers.
 
Contrary to popular belief Mughals established infrastructure throughout India for trade routes to connect ports and rest of India
and they established a decent taxing system

People get fixated on RR's but a central power would have established RR's it's almost a given if they were building new(modern) infrastructure projects(more up until 20,30 years before their collapse)

what makes people think that a central power wouldn't have done that maybe 20, 30 years down the line, when almost all central/powerful inidan kingdoms have embarked on modernisation efforts throughout history

If people should actually analyse the situation closely with open mind thier thinking will change

India woudnt be a first world country but a united India would have middle income living standards if it wasnt for the colonialism
 
also... weren't the mighals colonisers too, shouldnt the hypothesis assume what an uncolonised india would be like under indigenous rule?
 
nepal was never colonised, dont see it too much better than pak, ind or bang.

theres way too many variables to assume how a non colonised india would be today, other than that it pbly would have been many more countries, which would have been colonised by the other European powers.

Nepal is literally a wasteland, you need to have atleast something to build on
they had nothing, even if they shifted US government to the country it would struggle and may huff and puff to low-average income levels
 
also... weren't the mighals colonisers too, shouldnt the hypothesis assume what an uncolonised india would be like under indigenous rule?

The "wealth" STAYED IN INDIA and wasn't being shift out to Samarkand...

if British stayed in INdia I woundt call tham colonisers, invaders maybe,
 
Last edited:
also... weren't the mighals colonisers too, shouldnt the hypothesis assume what an uncolonised india would be like under indigenous rule?

Technically, the Mughals were invaders who permanently settled in the subcontinent instead of doing what colonial powers do, i.e. exploit resources and wealth and send them back to the mother country.

However, the Mughals should have established themselves as a colonial power and competed with the imperial Europeans. However, they were too focused on the luxurious of life and offered little resistance to the British.
 
nepal was never colonised, dont see it too much better than pak, ind or bang.

theres way too many variables to assume how a non colonised india would be today, other than that it pbly would have been many more countries, which would have been colonised by the other European powers.
I am assuming if colonisation never took place period
 
Nepal is literally a wasteland, you need to have atleast something to build on
they had nothing, even if they shifted US government to the country it would struggle and may huff and puff to low-average income levels

but im not expecting them to be western level of development, but there is no real tangible difference between nepal and neighbouring indian states in terms of economic development.

if colonialism in itself had that much of an impact you would see some difference of it, nepal is a country of 30 million people, thats big enough to support an economy.
 
I am assuming if colonisation never took place period

then its totally dependent on how readily the people of the subcontinent gained access to western technology.

on some level this would involve eventual economic subservience to the west for stuff like machines and guns. the indian subcontinent had a large share of global gdp when human capital outweighed economic capital.

i dont think the industrial revolution would have happened in india even to date.
 
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION], [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION], @KB, [MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION], @Gharib admi your views

It's a bit complicated.

1) The British came to the subcontinent with the goal of getting wealthy. Initially the East India Company (EIC) wanted to trade and were subservient to the Indian rulers, especially the Mughals. After the capture of the Mughal ship Ganj-i-Sawai by an English pirate, the EIC apologized profusely and compensated the Mughals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Mughal_convoy_piracy_incident_of_1695

The EIC also lost the Anglo-Mughal War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Mughal_War

2) Not due to EIC, but rather due to the divisions that existed among Indians due to their ethnicity, caste and religion, the Indians weakened over time. While the Indians continuously fought amongst themselves, the English were able to pick sides and grow stronger.

How shameful it was that an English Army Major, on his own accord murdered the sons and grandsons of the last Mughal Emperor and was not punished for the murders. Such was the fate of Indians as they kept getting weaker as they were unable to come together and oppose a foreign force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephen_Raikes_Hodson#Indian_rebellion

3) [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] has a point that the Indians were divided, and left to themselves would have continued with their feudal overlords who were continuously fighting each other. So the British did do good for the country by getting rid of the feudals. While most of the British came to India to get rich, some did try to help Indians by bringing Western education and ideas of democracy to the country.

4) The Railways is supposed to be Britain's great contribution in modernizing India. I think it was intended to be enable the economic exploitation of the country, but it did knit the country closer together.

5) The behavior of the English depended a lot upon which party was in power. While Labour (not surprisingly) was sympathetic to Indians, the Conservative Churchill was pretty bad. The Bengal Famine killed millions due to government inaction and Churchill could be least bothered.

In summary I would say that the main goal for most English was getting rich, but their arrival did India a lot of good by getting rid of the feudals and introducing modern Western ideas to a culture that at one time was great but had stagnated.
 
also... weren't the mighals colonisers too, shouldnt the hypothesis assume what an uncolonised india would be like under indigenous rule?

The Mughals homeland was the subcontinent, unlike the British whose homeland was in Europe.

The first Mughal emperor was indeed a foreigner to the subcontinent, but the others were born and bred there, intermarried with the locals, made it their home.

With the exception of Hindu Nationalist no one considers Mughals to be colonizers.
 
Technically, the Mughals were invaders who permanently settled in the subcontinent instead of doing what colonial powers do, i.e. exploit resources and wealth and send them back to the mother country.

As they lost their homeland, they had no choice but to settle in the subcontinent and make it their home.

However, the Mughals should have established themselves as a colonial power and competed with the imperial Europeans. However, they were too focused on the luxurious of life and offered little resistance to the British.

They did that initially, they took money from their vassal states, and spent it on territory they directly governed. Those vassals were like colonies.

Unfortunately Aurangzeb made a mistake of trying to expand the empire into the entire subcontinent too fast. Add to the fact that he lived so long, which meant his successor died a short while later, enabled others to reduce the empire to a shell of itself long before the British came.
 
British Colonialism was not good for subcontinent, however it was not bad either.

The British de industrialized the subcontinent, caused famines which killed millions, sent the wealth back to Britain, made the natives second class citizens in their own land, etc.

However they also created schools, built railways, brought English, are the reason the subcontinent is not divided into hundreds of states, introduced democracy, etc. They did not do this for the benefit of the people, however this was an indirect benefit.


Most important thing to remember is that British did nothing wrong in colonizing the subcontinent. Thats how the world worked then. And the reason that the Brits and other Euros were able to colonize the world, is because of their innovations and that for the last 300 years they have created 99% of the modern worlds inventions.
 
Don’t know what kind weird circular logic makes getting to know English a benefit of colonization. Yes, a lot of modern science was in English but a lot of it was also in French or German or other European languages. It wasn’t science alone that made English important, it was being the language of an empire that controlled half the world. Had the British not been able to colonize India and the New World, English would have been just another European language. Should African countries colonized by France celebrate knowing French as an advantage of colonization? If countries like Japan and China can develop without knowing English or other European languages, so could have the Indian sub-continent.
 
Don’t know what kind weird circular logic makes getting to know English a benefit of colonization. Yes, a lot of modern science was in English but a lot of it was also in French or German or other European languages. It wasn’t science alone that made English important, it was being the language of an empire that controlled half the world. Had the British not been able to colonize India and the New World, English would have been just another European language. Should African countries colonized by France celebrate knowing French as an advantage of colonization? If countries like Japan and China can develop without knowing English or other European languages, so could have the Indian sub-continent.

As an indian, I will trust a white britisher over an indian anyday. Sir Churchill was right when he said this. Brutal but accurate description of indians.

Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed. India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the equator.
 
As an indian, I will trust a white britisher over an indian anyday. Sir Churchill was right when he said this. Brutal but accurate description of indians.

Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed. India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the equator.

Totally agree with what Churchill said here.
 
The people of subcontinent, especially those in the region that comprises of the the modern Pakistan and the northern part of India are amongst the most dishonest, lazy and intellectually bankrupt people in the world.

They can cry all they want about colonial Britain but the reality is that without getting colonized, they would be about 200-300 years in the past and living in isolation.

The people of the subcontinent, especially Muslims of the subcontinent, have no achievements at all. At least the Hindus made great contributions to mathematics and science.

That is why subcontinent Muslims are always quick to latch onto the glory and the triumphs of the Arabs and Turks because their own achievements are zero, other than producing a bunch of drunk poets.

I agree with this, but as you have focused on Muslims and northern India, I would like to offer a supplementary view which will take into account the areas you left out,and the peoples: namely hindus and southern India. Now as we know, despite the British leaving, the best part of a century ago, many of these areas still haven't developed in a manner which the rest of the world has, we see great deficiencies in hygiene, town planning, sewerage, healthcare, arts and crafts.....the list is endless.

I would put this down to them being amongst the most lazy, dishonest and conniving people in the world. The British showed them the way, and they still haven't managed to achieve anything even the best part of a century later when they were left to their own devices.

And let us not forget, we are talking about the vast majority of the subcontinent here, hindus and modern day India make up the biggest part of it.
 
Sir Churchill was right when he said this. Brutal but accurate description of indians.

Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed. India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the equator.

Never knew that Churchill said this about the people of SC but he was completely right.
 
As an indian, I will trust a white britisher over an indian anyday. Sir Churchill was right when he said this. Brutal but accurate description of indians.

Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed. India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the equator.

Classic example of Stockholm Syndrome.
 
But a big federal power existed throughout SC history that kept SC together (except for SI and some ethnic states but unlike SI these territories could change hands like Punjab or something who were part of big empires but also became independent sometimes on and of)

Something of a mid evil version of modern nations where the big federal gov ruled but the ethnic territories (states) are independent in some sense

What makes you think they would have declared "outright" independence or affiliation with the federal gov? (mughal, Marhatas)

if britsh didnt arrive Marhatas were there controlling large parts of territory (although with very loose control)

Let me say this first.. Irrespective of whatever positive effects that the British colonialism might have had on the Indian subcontinent, colonialism and bondage can never be a beneficial thing no matter what spin we put on it.

But at the end of the day, some things are inevitable. Throughout history, you have always had examples of the stronger entity taking advantage of the weaker entity because that's the law of nature. It's a dog eat dog world we live in and in a world with limited resources to compete for, if anybody has unfettered power at his disposal, he would make sure he overpowers everyone else to have all those resources for himself. That's what happened with colonialism. We can talk about how it was morally and ethically bad all day, but at the end of the day, one tiny island managed to pretty much rule almost the entirety of the Earth and we have to understand why we were powerless to let that happen.

The obvious answer is industrial revolution. Yes, I know the British hampered the progress of our own industrial revolution but then again, they were in a position to do so because they got a head start ahead of everyone else and there was a reason for that. For any civilization to progress and not get stagnated, it needs to invest in science and research in cutting edge technology. One of the favourite pastime of PPers is to discuss why the muslim/hindu empires were alpha/beta, but whether it was the hindu empire or the muslim empire, none of those kings really invested in science and technology and as a result, they stagnated relative to what was happening elsewhere across the world and became outdated civilizations. When the Europeans were rolling out their cannons and battalions of soldiers armed with guns, our lads were riding their ponies with shiny swords and it was a bit like a professional military facing tribal warlords, the result was always going to be one way.

If you look at the countries that weren't colonised by European powers, you can count them with your fingers. Japan, Korea, Thailand, Afghanistan, etc., being some of them. But even Korea and Thailand got colonised by Imperial Japan. If the Indian subcontinent was not colonised by the British, we would've got colonised by the French or Germans or the Japanese. We were always going to get colonised as the empires of the subcontinent were way behind in progress relative to its peers in Europe. But even if by some stroke of luck we had managed to not get colonised at all, we would have got overpowered by just another superpower a few years later. Take Afghanistan as an example, even though the British did have some control over Afghanistan, they weren't colonised as much as British India was. They had their own kings, different dynasties and everything. Guess what happened to them..One thing led to another and monarchy transformed to communism, then cold war and the next superpowers - the Soviet Union and the USA started competing for influence in Afghanistan that led to the Soviet Afghan war, Mujahedeen and finally Taliban. So it doesn't matter so much about if we were colonised or not, as long as we remained weak, someone or the other would've managed to overpower us.
 
What is up with Bengalis being Uncle Toms? Bengalis suffered the most under the cruel oppressive rule of the British yet they tend to be the most pro-British, out of any ethnic groups I've met from the subcontinent.
 
What is up with Bengalis being Uncle Toms? Bengalis suffered the most under the cruel oppressive rule of the British yet they tend to be the most pro-British, out of any ethnic groups I've met from the subcontinent.

Considering how far off Calcutta/Kolkata has fallen in relevance compared to other metros in India, atleast since the Brits left, its not really a surprise. It was their golden period.
 
Every empire that has 'conquered' the world has done so by pioneering a mode of transport.

With the British it was the Railway and Seas.

Fact is, if one is going to claim subcontinent was full of riches for 1000s of years, well, I got news for you, the British taught the subcontinent how to profit from said 'riches'.

British left with infrastructure, process (judicial for example), language, but more importantly, Cricket (tongue in cheek).

The reality is the British wouldn't be here if it weren't for the Romans etc.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
 
Last edited:
The only benefit imo is cricket and of course families moving to the UK including mine.

Overall if you think being colonised by white folk was needed to improve your land, you are mentally colonised by them too. British could have helped with transport , language and everything else without looting and killing millions.
 
There definitely were some positives, but they were a by-product and not intentional. Some estimates say that the British stole/exploited about $45 trillion from the Indian subcontinent. Some make the argument that the natives wouldn't be able to make use of their natural resources without British intervention, which may be true, but that doesn't excuse how much was taken.
 
The death of Queen Elizabeth II will accelerate the push by former UK colonies to ditch the British crown, experts and advocates have said, amid heightened anti-colonial sentiments in the remaining Commonwealth realms.

Despite the collapse of the British Empire in the last century, 14 countries have kept the monarch as their head of state after gaining independence.

But with King Charles III ascending to the throne after the death of his mother last week, several nations are expected to break ties with Buckingham Palace in the years to come – and move towards a full republican system that does not recognise the monarch.

“There was already stirrings of republicanism in a number of these different countries. But as long as the Queen was alive, there was that sentimental attachment to her person – not to the institution, but to the queen herself,” said Brooke Newman, an associate professor of history at Virginia Commonwealth University.

“Now that she is gone, there is much less of a sentimental attachment to the institution of the monarchy, and then even less so to the person of Charles III.”

‘Building awareness’

The Commonwealth realms include several Caribbean nations where republicanism is gaining momentum, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and a few island nations in the Pacific.

While the prime minister of New Zealand has ruled out the possibility of a divorce from the crown in the foreseeable future, in the Caribbean, it is a different story.

Last November, Barbados renounced the crown and became a republic, prompting similar conversations in other countries in the region. And since the queen’s death, the prime minister of nearby Antigua and Barbuda, an island country of nearly 100,000 people, announced plans to hold a referendum on keeping King Charles III as head of state.

Newman said the crown’s Commonwealth realm will shrink significantly in the coming decades.

“It’s going to be happening during the reign of Charles. If he lives for another 20-25 years, I’ll be very surprised if there are a large number of Commonwealth realms by the time his son takes the throne,” she told Al Jazeera.

Republican feelings have been especially pronounced in Jamaica, the largest of the Commonwealth realms in the Caribbean. “The decision to remove the monarch as a head of state is about completing the decolonisation process,” said Rosalea Hamilton, coordinator of The Advocacy Network, a group that has been pushing for republicanism in Jamaica.

Hamilton argued that moving to republicanism will enable broader constitutional reforms to strengthen democratic representation and legislative oversight in the country. Asked whether the death of the queen has refuelled the push to sever ties with the crown, Hamilton said, “Absolutely.”

She added that with the queen’s obituaries and funeral news dominating headlines and the country declaring 12 days of mourning, more Jamaicans – especially young people – are understanding what it means to have the monarch as head of state.

“The more significant impact it has had is building the awareness of the Jamaican people about what has happened and the imperative of making the change,” Hamilton told Al Jazeera.

In March, Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness told visiting British royals that the island was “moving on” from the crown, and that adopting republicanism was “inevitable”.

But since then, there has been little progress to amend the constitution and declare the country a republic, said Hamilton. “We are now going to step up our advocacy in light of the [queen’s] death around the timetable, more details – ‘When is the public education going to start around the constitutional change and the referendum?'”

Legacy of slavery

In Jamaica, like other realm countries and the UK itself, the monarch’s role is largely ceremonial. But that attachment to a colonial past, which Hamilton described as “inhumane”, has practical implications.

For example, the final court of appeals in the country is the London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which is known as the court of last resort for Commonwealth realms and “overseas territories”.

“We want to move to an arrangement in which the final court of appeal is not in Britain, but in the Caribbean, because if you want full justice and you want to appeal to the highest court, you now need a visa, and you also need to pay to travel to England to adjudicate your case,” Hamilton said.

She added that the visa requirements for Jamaicans to travel to the UK are a “sore point” that shows keeping the British monarch as head of state does not bring benefits.

Hamilton called on King Charles III to break with the tradition that his mother had set by working to remedy the damage and pain left by the British Empire – including through reparations for hundreds of years of slavery.

Britain's King Charles makes an address at Westminster Hall
The UK’s King Charles previously expressed ‘personal sorrow’ over slavery [Henry Nicholls/Pool via Reuters]
The United Kingdom brought hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans to Caribbean islands under British control from the 1600s until emancipation in the 19th century.

Enslaved people in the Caribbean were put into forced labour for the benefit of the empire, and when slavery was abolished, the UK gave money to the enslavers, not the victims. The British government did not finish paying off the loans it took out to “compensate” the slave owners until 2015.

In June, then-Prince Charles expressed “personal sorrow” for “slavery’s enduring impact” at a summit for Commonwealth nations in Rwanda, but he did not offer an apology.

‘It’s untenable’

While demands for reparation and efforts to move towards republicanism are on separate tracks, some advocates have said they are intertwined as they both reflect the former colonies’ demand for sovereignty and justice.

“Monarchy in a lot of ways seems anachronistic, especially in the realms,” said Newman, the professor. “And I’m thinking specifically in places like Barbados, Jamaica, Antigua, where there is a very long history of colonialism, slavery, the compensation of slave owners and not giving the enslaved anything after freedom.”


When Prince William – Charles’s son – and his wife Kate visited Jamaica earlier this year, dozens of academics and advocates, including Hamilton, signed an open letter calling on the royals to apologise for slavery and “begin a process of reparatory justice”.

“You, who may one day lead the British Monarchy, are direct beneficiaries of the wealth accumulated by the Royal family over centuries, including that stemming from the trafficking and enslavement of Africans,” it read. “You therefore have the unique opportunity to redefine the relationship between the British Monarchy and the people of Jamaica.”

There are differing views on whether it would be easier to demand reparations before or after detaching from the crown. But for many observers, the republicanism train is already moving.

David Comissiong, ambassador for Barbados to the Caribbean community, told Al Jazeera in a television interview this week that keeping the British monarch as head of state has become difficult for many Caribbean nations. “That is untenable; that’s an anachronism,” he said.

For her part, Newman told Al Jazeera that the Caribbean push to ditch the Commonwealth may have a domino effect. “If you’re in a club and people are bailing, what does that say about the value of this membership?”

Al Jazeera
 
After Queen Elizabeth's death, calls are now being made for the return of several diamonds, which adorn the British crown jewels. South Africa has joined the growing chaos seeking the return of Great Star of Africa, the largest known clear-cut diamond. Also known as Cullinan I, it was cut from the larger gem that was mined in South Africa in 1905, according to a report in CNN. The Great Star was handed over to the British royal family by the colonial rulers of Africa and is currently mounted on a royal scepter belonging to the Queen, the outlet further said.
Also Read | Besides Kohinoor, These 4 Items Were Also Taken Away By The British

"The Cullinan Diamond must be returned to South Africa with immediate effect," activist Thanduxolo Sabelo told local media, according to CNN. "The minerals of our country and other countries continue to benefit Britain at the expense of our people."

An online petition has been launched on change.org seeking the return of the diamond and it has been signed by more than 6,000 people.

Vuyolwethu Zungula, a member of the South African Parliament, posted a tweet demanding "reparations for all the harm done by Britain" and "return of all the gold, diamonds stolen by Britain".

Also Read | Queen Elizabeth's Death: Kohinoor Crown Will Go To Camilla, Says Report

ABC News said in a report that the 530.2-carat drop-shaped diamond was added to sceptre with Cross, a sacred object that dates back to the 1600s used during coronation ceremonies.

The diamond is on public display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London, the outlet further said.

The exact monetary value of the diamond is unclear, though its rarity and history makes it worth a fortune.

Many social media users have also launched campaigns demanding the return of several diamonds in the possession of British family to their respective countries.

NDTV
 
I think more and more people are realizing the negative impact and the crowns legacy in the subcontinent. The british looted and plundered the land, exploited and encouraged the religious tensions and differences, and left with contentious partition decisions that will reverberate in the future. We are still fighting wars years after they left.
 
I think more and more people are realizing the negative impact and the crowns legacy in the subcontinent. The british looted and plundered the land, exploited and encouraged the religious tensions and differences, and left with contentious partition decisions that will reverberate in the future. We are still fighting wars years after they left.

For hardline BJP supporters I think they feel deep down indebted to the crown gor bringing an end to Muslim rule.

I mean these guys cant tolerate street names, seem to find a statute buried under every building built by muslims, throw hissy fits over the use of urdu and spend their time swearing at Mughals.

But when it comes to the British colonialists Modi declares a day of mourning!
 
For hardline BJP supporters I think they feel deep down indebted to the crown gor bringing an end to Muslim rule.

I mean these guys cant tolerate street names, seem to find a statute buried under every building built by muslims, throw hissy fits over the use of urdu and spend their time swearing at Mughals.

But when it comes to the British colonialists Modi declares a day of mourning!

You seem to know a lot about BJP philosophy despite never ever have visited India or have a clue about Indian politics or what are the odds you have even read the BJP manifesto (atleast an abridged online summary version of it)

Stop passing of what you heard casually in a conversation in some playground as some kind of well read fact.

Also I don’t know of any alternative version but I would assume by the time British came into full power Mughal dynasty was done.

I am not sure even the current Mughals can name the next in line after Aurangazeb lol .

In fact British did do more damage. They made both sc Hindus and Muslims hate their own identity. The last thing BJP or it’s affiliate want is to embrace anything to do with British identity as much as they oppose Islamic rule.
 
You seem to know a lot about BJP philosophy despite never ever have visited India or have a clue about Indian politics or what are the odds you have even read the BJP manifesto (atleast an abridged online summary version of it)

Stop passing of what you heard casually in a conversation in some playground as some kind of well read fact.

Also I don’t know of any alternative version but I would assume by the time British came into full power Mughal dynasty was done.

I am not sure even the current Mughals can name the next in line after Aurangazeb lol .

In fact British did do more damage. They made both sc Hindus and Muslims hate their own identity. The last thing BJP or it’s affiliate want is to embrace anything to do with British identity as much as they oppose Islamic rule.

Thanks for the essay.

But answer the question.

Why BJP gets its pants in a twist over Mughals but declare a day of mourning for a British imperialist?

Please educate me on this.
 
Back
Top